What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

It's not a sum, it's a multiplication. Sure, an extreme acceleration can make a small particle dangerous (as bullets attest), but after all some things can resist bullets, and even so, mass times acceleration. No matter how large the acceleration gets, a small enough mass and the force barely registers.

I have never claimed it was a "sum". I've described 2 factors that indeed multiply.

The range of meteors is also an exponential one, just like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc where a 5.0 magnitude earthquake is 10 times stronger than a 4.0 one but also 10 times less abundant. That makes that there are many small meteors and very few big ones.

The shield gets penetrated by small meteors all the time which would destroy every technology inside. The chance to be hit by a larger particle is much lower.

And the diameter does not matter for the penetration; a tiny bullet with the same acceleration does damage, you cannot somehow disregard that and say "oh, it was small, so no problem". That's sci-fi.

Quote

steer that thing away [impossible to do]

Why is simple propulsion impossible?

There is no "propulsion" in space. See the closed skateboard topic for repetitive explanations.

The shield gets penetrated by small meteors all the time which would destroy every technology inside. The chance to be hit by a larger particle is much lower.

And the diameter does not matter for the penetration; a tiny bullet with the same acceleration does damage, you cannot somehow disregard that and say "oh, it was small, so no problem". That's sci-fi.

Diameter doesn't matter, mass does. You've yet to show that the diminished mass of a small meteorite has anywhere near the force required, when accelerated by the Earth's pull alone, to penetrate a satellite.

There is no "propulsion" in space. See the closed skateboard topic for repetitive explanations.

It's been claimed, not explained. Every supposed explanation has been debunked repeatedly. Ignoring a rebuttal doesn't count as refuting it.

Here is an explanation of the type of "shielding" they use on "satellites" (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-you-shield-astronauts-and-satellites-from-deadly-micrometeorites-3911799/?no-ist).

I just threw out my first attempt at what might be used to make a satellite function (so maybe no cocoon but ablative armor). My point was the people can be creative (just check out the FEF model/explanations). They will try stuff until they find something that works. They have done it with tanks. Even cars now have collapsible bumpers to absorb the impact as opposed to the solid bumpers cars had years ago. They even developed "air bags". Certain shapes can deflect objects at least into safe directions. So I am sure "we" can figure it out.

Yep, FEers, don't worry your pretty little heads. Just go to work like good little robots and provide taxes for the REers/satellites.

Diameter doesn't matter, mass does.

That is directly related. If we take a special gravity of 3.0 for a meteor(ite), then the diameter of the near-spherical (reading along, FE'ers; also meteors are near-spheres) object is just directly related to its mass.

You've yet to show that the diminished mass of a small meteorite has anywhere near the force required, when accelerated by the Earth's pull alone, to penetrate a satellite.

"diminished" mass? Diminished by what? Meteorites on Earth fall every day. Meteors even more as they burn up in the atmosphere. In space (so by definition outside of Earths protective layer) a meteor (object falling to Earth due to gravity) = meteorite (an object crashing).

Any object at that acceleration (due to gravity) will penetrate, no matter how small (mass or diameter). There's no material on Earth able to withstand a "bullet" going at that amazing acceleration.

It's been claimed, not explained. Every supposed explanation has been debunked repeatedly. Ignoring a rebuttal doesn't count as refuting it.

No, it's exactly the other way around; it has been claimed that rockets work in space and it has been explained how that is impossible. Those explanations have been responded to, but that are not "rebuttals". It's simply words relying on the same propaganda that has been shown to be physically incorrect.

Here is an explanation of the type of "shielding" they use on "satellites" (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-you-shield-astronauts-and-satellites-from-deadly-micrometeorites-3911799/?no-ist).

There is no "shield" from micrometeorites and there's no "meteorites" and "micrometeorites". It's a constant range in size, behaving according to exponential laws.

But nice you believe that crap of the Smithsonian.

I just threw out my first attempt at what might be used to make a satellite function (so maybe no cocoon but ablative armor). My point was the people can be creative (just check out the FEF model/explanations). They will try stuff until they find something that works. They have done it with tanks. Even cars now have collapsible bumpers to absorb the impact as opposed to the solid bumpers cars had years ago. They even developed "air bags". Certain shapes can deflect objects at least into safe directions. So I am sure "we" can figure it out.

Yes, your "defense" is from belief. You want it to be true, so search for confirmation of your beliefs. Many people do that.

If it were really possible, it would have been an implemented technology, and no, that hasn't been done on Earth. We don't have the capacity to withstand those enormous forces and racing particles.

No deflections, no "shield", no "cocoon", no protection. Out there it's gravity and everything is slave to that. Even crashing meteors onto an imagined "space craft".

Mine comes from DirecTV.

Via a satellite above the equator.

Quote from: Jane on January 21, 2016, 12:24:04 PM

Diameter doesn't matter, mass does.

That is directly related. If we take a special gravity of 3.0 for a meteor(ite), then the diameter of the near-spherical (reading along, FE'ers; also meteors are near-spheres) object is just directly related to its mass.

Quote

You've yet to show that the diminished mass of a small meteorite has anywhere near the force required, when accelerated by the Earth's pull alone, to penetrate a satellite.

"diminished" mass? Diminished by what? Meteorites on Earth fall every day. Meteors even more as they burn up in the atmosphere. In space (so by definition outside of Earths protective layer) a meteor (object falling to Earth due to gravity) = meteorite (an object crashing).

Any object at that acceleration (due to gravity) will penetrate, no matter how small (mass or diameter). There's no material on Earth able to withstand a "bullet" going at that amazing acceleration.

What is this amazing acceleration? 9.8m/s/s? Pretty sure I could survive a bullet at that. Mind you, momentum (dependent on mass velocity) is trickier, but remember that it'd be very much slower in space as it wouldn't have been accelerating nearly as long...
We are talking about small meteorites, remember: small mass.
All you seem to be offering is sensationalistic claims like "Nothing could survive that!" with no discernible justification.

No, it's exactly the other way around; it has been claimed that rockets work in space and it has been explained how that is impossible. Those explanations have been responded to, but that are not "rebuttals". It's simply words relying on the same propaganda that has been shown to be physically incorrect.

Asserted to be incorrect. It was impossible to get an answer to simple questions like how air molecules interacted with the exhaust to push a rocket, or whether a force was required for the fuel to leave the rocket. It was a long thread dominated by a voodoo-obsessed troll, with no actual justification.

What is this amazing acceleration? 9.8m/s/s? Pretty sure I could survive a bullet at that.

I bet you'd survive an incoming meteor. But then again "why so serious"? Joker.

Mind you, momentum (dependent on mass velocity) is trickier, but remember that it'd be very much slower in space as it wouldn't have been accelerating nearly as long...

No, not as long? All the trajectory towards Earth. And then supposedly somewhere above Earth they'd come across a "satellite".

But Lucky NASA Luke shoots faster than his shadow and "diverts" the incoming meteor.

We are talking about small meteorites, remember: small mass.

Irrelevant; small particles penetrate just like syringes.

All you seem to be offering is sensationalistic claims like "Nothing could survive that!" with no discernible justification.

And all you claim are phreaky phantasies by Disney dwarfs.

Asserted to be incorrect. It was impossible to get an answer to simple questions like how air molecules interacted with the exhaust to push a rocket, or whether a force was required for the fuel to leave the rocket. It was a long thread dominated by a voodoo-obsessed troll, with no actual justification.

Air molecules? We were talking space, remember? No "air molecules" there, outside of the atmosphere.

The voodoo is in the vicious vantasy. Legba is just explaining to you and anyone actually interested in the subject how the dices roll. Not in your favor, that's fo' shure.

Yet the ISS is real, and the sky is lit up with space debri such as rocket bodies that make passes every 90 minutes...

Explain this please 

Quote from: Master_Evar on January 21, 2016, 12:10:07 AM

The gravel that hit satellites are usually a lot smaller than actual tank shells, so they won't penetrate the satellite.

Hilarious.

The size/diameter of an object racing with 10's of thousands of km/h is now somehow the factor of importance? Small meteors do not penetrate some magical non-existing "shield" because they are small? 

That would mean a syringe doesn't penetrate your body while a sword would.

The bullshit is getting blubbery, "Master" Evar... 

If they are small, they have low mass (usually). Unless they are super dense, which is very unlikely. A syringe can penetrate your body because there is usually a much larger, massive and stronger arm (compared to the syringe) which pushes it into your skin. Normal handgun bullets won't penetrate tank armor, unless they travel at insane speeds, and micro-meteorites are much smaller and have less mass. Smaller size does mean that there is a higher pressure, which can increase likelihood of penetration. However, for a uniform decrease in volume, areas decrease squarely whilst mass decreases cubicly. So in the end, small meteors usually have a much smaller chance of penetrating satellites compared to a larger meteorites.

Just to give you an idea of how small and massless micro-meteorites are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometeorite

A micrometeorite is an extraterrestrial particle, ranging in size from 50 µm to 2 mm, collected on the Earth's surface. Micrometeorites are micrometeoroids which have survived entry through the Earth's atmosphere. They differ from meteorites in being smaller, more plentiful and different in composition and are a subset of cosmic dust, which also includes the smaller interplanetary dust particles (IDPs). Micrometeorites enter the Earth's atmosphere with high velocities (at least 11 km/s) and undergo heating through atmospheric friction and compression. Individual micrometeorites weigh between 10⁻⁹ and 10⁻⁴ g and collectively contribute most of the extraterrestrial material that has come to the present day Earth.

No, not as long? All the trajectory towards Earth. And then supposedly somewhere above Earth they'd come across a "satellite".

Yes, the trajectory towards Earth where the gravitational force will be weaker as it's at a larger distance. Wow. Such terrifying acceleration and subsequent speed. 

Irrelevant; small particles penetrate just like syringes.

Try using a syringe on a metal plate sometime, let me know how that goes. Plus, of course, they're much smaller than syringes.

Air molecules? We were talking space, remember? No "air molecules" there, outside of the atmosphere.

Yep, but apparently that's how rockets work in-atmosphere: pushing on air molecules. No actual explanation, just like you're unable to justify your claims about rockets, or about meteors. Just handwaving and assertion.

Yet the ISS is real, and the sky is lit up with space debri such as rocket bodies that make passes every 90 minutes...
Explain this please 

Why can't you look it up yourself?  But very briefly:
While space is big,  there are some 26,000 items of debris over 10 cm. 
The ISS is at some risk, and a number of steps are taken to minimise the damage.

• A Whipple Shield (light multilayer) is used where possible.
• The solar panels are some other areas cannot be covered and have suffered minor damage.
• The ISS is manoeuvred (by increasing altitude) to avoid larger pieces. This has been done 16 times. 

Noted that the avoidance manoeuvre does not waste fuel as the ISS requires re-orbitting regularly anyway.
Another helpful factor is that space debris at the altitude of the ISS is gradually slowed by air (what tiny bit there is!) resistance and finally burns up.
Some from http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/how-nasa-steers-the-international-space-station-around-space-junk/
You can chase up more detail if you want!

And yet no flat failer has explained how the current system in use can provide coverage in the middle of the oceans..
The evasions of the Engeeneer were pretty lulzy though. Nice to see more nonsense from Scepti I kinda missed that ahahah my god Scepti being open minded doesn't mean you have to let every stupidity come in and absorbe it like a sponge.
To the Engineer, you still havent answered how the current system we use works over oceans if they're not using satellites. I doubt anyone argues that it is a requirement per say, which is your claim.

You have a chance to smash the argument with your luminous Engineers knowledge and some maths that is supposed to be the core of your claimed work

Sorry if this is a little OT, but i am getting curious here...rockets dont work in space? I cant find "the skateboard thread" for some reason...

Aha well hold onto your panties for this one, see the very reason why rockets work in space is the reason they use to say it doesnt work .. because tbey think that Newtons laws, i tjink the 3rd about action / reaction, means that a rockets pushes AGAINST THE AIR to create propulsion.

No air means no rockets means no space anything means fake pictures and that means the earth is flat.

When actually it pushes againdt the Exhaust..

If someone can prsesent evidence a rocket only pushes against the Air then im a flat earther tonight

I doubt anyone argues that it is a requirement per say, which is your claim.

Then why are you arguing it if you agree with my claim?

Because unless I'm mistaken you assert that satellites don't exist and that the GPS system currently in use isn't the result of satellite usage.

That's not the same as saying that GPS doesn't Require satellites, as indeed if we covered the oceans with buoys and Towers etc we might achieve the same result. But no one cares about that really.

So you think satellites are real? If not how so you explain covergae over difficult areas like oceans?

Sorry if this is a little OT, but i am getting curious here...rockets dont work in space? I cant find "the skateboard thread" for some reason...

That's because it's locked because it demoralized into a name calling match.

Not my statement:

Because unless I'm mistaken you assert that satellites don't exist and that the GPS system currently in use isn't the result of satellite usage.

My statement:

GPS doesn't Require satellites

So yes, you are mistaken.

We already know your statement, but you didn't answer the question...

We already know your statement, but you didn't answer the question...

This is absurd. Most GPS software will tell you the satellites that it's locked into. Then, you can head here:
http://www.calsky.com/?GPS=
Next, you can aim your telescope and see them for yourself. Sometimes, you can see them unaided, or with binoculars. Amateur satellite gazing is a major hobby. They move in very predictable orbits, and are easily observable. This is how GPS works. If someone thinks it works another way, they are playing ostrich.

So...we all agree that GPS does not require satellites?  That's what it sounds like to me.

So...we all agree that GPS does not require satellites?  That's what it sounds like to me.

Do ALL GPS systems use satellites? No. Do GPS uses at least some satillites? That's what we're asking. And actually this is about giving evidence that ALL satellites not existing, not just GPS.

So, let's clear things up:

Engineer, do you believe the GPS system currently in use use satellites?

Yes or no?

I'm new here, and don't know what has or hasn't been addressed, but this sounded like an interesting topic. There are thousands of man made satellites in orbit, from many different countries, and a huge percentage of them are also owned by private companies. If satellites did not exist, I believe that several million people would need to be in on the conspiracy.

I'm new here, and don't know what has or hasn't been addressed, but this sounded like an interesting topic. There are thousands of man made satellites in orbit, from many different countries, and a huge percentage of them are also owned by private companies. If satellites did not exist, I believe that several million people would need to be in on the conspiracy.

Good point and welcome.

Not my statement:

Quote from: Mr Garisson on January 28, 2016, 09:31:29 AM

Because unless I'm mistaken you assert that satellites don't exist and that the GPS system currently in use isn't the result of satellite usage.

My statement:

Quote from: Mr Garisson on January 28, 2016, 09:31:29 AM

GPS doesn't Require satellites

So yes, you are mistaken.

Your statement doesnt mean much on its own, you are right to say that it doesnt require satellites in a sense that we could in theory achieve simular results with a system that doesnt currently exist, but no one cares about that.

You have to say in which context you think GPS doesnt require satellites. In theory or reality?

The reason for the statement, is that RE'ers always pop up on this site stating "If satellites don't exist, how does GPS work?"  It became such a common question, that I put the statement "GPS does not require satellites" under my avatar.  Well, that and the fact that that statement makes RE'ers really foam at the mouth and it's fun to prove how little RE'ers know of the topic they are trying to argue.

No part of the locating process requires that the signal originate exoatmospheric, therefore, GPS does not require satellites.

The reason for the statement, is that RE'ers always pop up on this site stating "If satellites don't exist, how does GPS work?"  It became such a common question, that I put the statement "GPS does not require satellites" under my avatar.  Well, that and the fact that that statement makes RE'ers really foam at the mouth and it's fun to prove how little RE'ers know of the topic they are trying to argue.

No part of the locating process requires that the signal originate exoatmospheric, therefore, GPS does not require satellites.

But do they USE satellites at all is the question.